Sign up
Store
Players Online: 42.7k Support Forums Client
Subscribe
Gun control
What are your thoughts?
 0
PM Link
I think Americans need to have more gun control. Nobody needs a high powered automatic or Semi Automatic gun in my opinion. The whole argument for guns is that people can defend themselves if they have one. However, one or two shots (or even just shouting "I have a gun") usually stops people dead in their tracks, I simply don't understand why anyone would need to spray bullets from high powered guns to defend themselves. A handgun or pistol would surely do. High powered guns are made to kill multiple people, and civilians have absolutely no need for them. In the U.K we had one mass school shooting, and after that we said never again. Had sweeping gun control laws introduced, and we've never had a mass shooting since. It's truly a no brainer for me.
 7
PM Link
guns not ok :(


guns kill peaple :(



 2
PM Link

Bluuiish wrote

guns not ok :(


guns kill peaple :(





Nuff said!
 0
PM Link

LukeWilliams10 wrote

I think Americans need to have more gun control. Nobody needs an automatic or Semi Automatic gun in my opinion. The whole argument for guns is that people can defend themselves if they have one. However, one or two shots (or even just shouting "I have a gun") usually stops people dead in their tracks, I simply don't understand why anyone would need to spray bullets from high powered guns to defend themselves. A handgun or pistol would surely do. High powered guns are made to kill multiple people, and civilians have absolutely no need for them. In the U.K we had one mass school shooting, and after that we said never again. Had sweeping gun control laws introduced, and we've never had a mass shooting since. It's truly a no brainer for me.


“Mass shootings” is a very vague and inaccurate way to define crime. The only accurate statistics you can go by is gun related homicides. Despite the fact that the United States is the number 1 country in terms of number of owned guns but they only rank 28th in all firearm deaths.
States with the strictest gun laws in the US also have the highest crime rate. Around 68% of all firearm deaths are by handguns not the type you are talking about. In the UK %56 of all burglaries are “hot burglaries” which means the house is being burgled into when the owner is at home which are far more likely to end with violence when that number is %13 in the US.

Also %80 of all gun crimes are done with illegally obtained guns
 0
PM Link

Radioactivebeans wrote

LukeWilliams10 wrote...



“Mass shootings” is a very vague and inaccurate way to define crime. The only accurate statistics you can go by is gun related homicides. Despite the fact that the United States is the number 1 country in terms of number of owned guns but they only rank 28th in all firearm deaths.
States with the strictest gun laws in the US also have the highest crime rate. Around 68% of all firearm deaths are by handguns not the type you are talking about. In the UK %56 of all burglaries are “hot burglaries” which means the house is being burgled into when the owner is at home which are far more likely to end with violence when that number is %13 in the US.

Also %80 of all gun crimes are done with illegally obtained guns
we need gun to protect ourselves from trump tyrrany especially the women who are constantly oppressed by the patriarchy
 0
PM Link

LukeWilliams10 wrote

I think Americans need to have more gun control. Nobody needs an automatic or Semi Automatic gun in my opinion. The whole argument for guns is that people can defend themselves if they have one. However, one or two shots (or even just shouting "I have a gun") usually stops people dead in their tracks, I simply don't understand why anyone would need to spray bullets from high powered guns to defend themselves. A handgun or pistol would surely do. High powered guns are made to kill multiple people, and civilians have absolutely no need for them. In the U.K we had one mass school shooting, and after that we said never again. Had sweeping gun control laws introduced, and we've never had a mass shooting since. It's truly a no brainer for me.
but there are more crimes in uk idoit. just because there are no gun crimes doesnt mean theres no crime. way more crimes than usa


see?
 0
PM Link

LukeWilliams10 wrote

I think Americans need to have more gun control. Nobody needs an automatic or Semi Automatic gun in my opinion. The whole argument for guns is that people can defend themselves if they have one. However, one or two shots (or even just shouting "I have a gun") usually stops people dead in their tracks, I simply don't understand why anyone would need to spray bullets from high powered guns to defend themselves. A handgun or pistol would surely do. High powered guns are made to kill multiple people, and civilians have absolutely no need for them. In the U.K we had one mass school shooting, and after that we said never again. Had sweeping gun control laws introduced, and we've never had a mass shooting since. It's truly a no brainer for me.

There are many problems with gun control Luke, the two I will discuss are ethics and logistics:
1) The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states the right for American citizens (and green card holders in fact) to bear arms shall not be infringed. There are areas of the United States where the nearest cop car is an hour away, are individuals supposed to wait for an hour if an armed intruder enters there home? No, they grab a firearm and defend their homes and families. Who stopped the recent Texas shooting? It was a law abiding citizen that shot the prick comitting mass murder. Not the police. If it wasn't for that Texan being armed, who knows how many others would have perished that day. What's more Kennesaw, Georgia makes it mandatory for those living in it's city to own and keep at least one firearm. As a result, Kennesaw has crime rates 40-60% below the national average.

The Second Amendment also has the intent of protecting citizens of the republic from tyrannical rule and oppression. It guarantees the state is beneath the feet of the people and not over their heads, 'when the government fears the people, there is freedom'. If any politician of any party started to enact severely anti-constitutional law, you can bet your bottom dollar that a sizable portion of the american populace would fight back alongside the military (more on the latter in my second point).

Interestingly, the right to bare arms actually finds its self evident in English common law, although it only applied to protestants.

2) From a logistical standpoint, it would be damn near impossible to collect every so called 'assault weapon'. The ATF would be met with dead agents and firefights, local police departments would probably want nothing to do with it and neither would the military. You know why? The military of the US are not sworn to Congress, nor the Presidency, but to the Constitution. And as stated previously, we all know what the Second Amendment of that Constitution has to say.

If some how guns were banned and rounded up, that doesn't stop all shootings. It stops people defending themselves from possible shootings and other self defense related incidents.

Anonymous Quote

Nobody needs an automatic or Semi Automatic gun in my opinion.

Automatic firearms became illegal to purchase in 1986, and yes they do need such firearms because it keeps them on somewhat of an equal footing with the military and other state-armed organizations (federal agencies etc.)

cfrazierjr wrote

LukeWilliams10 wrote...

but there are more crimes in uk idoit. just because there are no gun crimes doesnt mean theres no crime. way more crimes than usa


see?

I'm on your side, but your argument is stupid and it's even more stupid that you called an Administrator an idiot.

 0
PM Link
Oh wow my reply here got a few replies. Right I'm kind of weary about creating a huge illegible messy quote train so if it's okay I'm just going to @ you and reply :P Also I probably won't be replying after this, but I can talk more about it on Discord if any of you guys wanted.

@Radioactivebeans - So you stated mass shootings are an unreliable way to describe crime, it can be seen as that in ways. But a "mass shooting" is considered to be a shooting in which 4 or more people are injured or killed (but that's not an official statistic). There's been around 30 of these in America so far in 2018 (I can get you a source for that if needed). Now you mentioned that the USA is 28th in the world of fire arm deaths, but I've found other sources which put the USA at around 11th. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-rates-of-firearm-related-deaths.html . But then again to be fair I've found a source which says it's 31st too. What I immediately noticed is that a huge amount of the countries above are developing countries. They obviously aren't on a level playing field, sometimes having underfunded security services so murders aren't investigated properly and nobody is brought to justice. Some have gang problems, drug cartels and corruption. For example Honduras is high up on the list, and it has gang problems due to it being on a drug trafficking route, also having corruption/gang problems among other things. Are we really comparing the USA to countries with huge problems like this and not enough resources to deal with them?

Then you also mentioned about the U.K being prone to "hot burglaries" . Now while I spouted about the U.K having less mass shootings above, it's true. However, I do not believe our self defence laws are perfect. I would never ever suggest allowing people to have guns, but I would definitely be up for non lethal weapons like mace or a Taser which currently aren't allowed in the U.K. So there's that. However, a lot of burglaries in the U.K are opportunistic crimes, there is not criminals like Marv and Harry from the film Home alone staking out houses they're planning to rob for a week prior to the crime :P They usually just see an opportunity and they take it, which is still bad of course. But these people often don't want confrontation when doing that.

Then lastly you mentioned about 68% of crime is committed by handguns, so for one that's still 32% of crimes committed using the guns I'm talking about which is still a lot! Secondly on that, if 68% percent of gun crime are committed using them type of gun. Wouldn't a handgun suffice to defend yourself against it too?

@cfrazierjr I never said that we don't have crime in the U.K :P We have crime here too though that's not my point. But for one gun crime is lower (https://gyazo.com/95597c9217e90df46a70fbf16c42879a). I also noticed your Stat may have been from 2002 (it seems to say that although it's chopped off a little) Which is a while ago! A more recent statistic from 2014 regarding violent crime : https://gyazo.com/409a6ed775ecdd987186da0ead665c07 .

@cringiecake : Last but by no means least. I understand what you are saying, the second amendment is an issue. But amendments can be made to that too :P I don't know if I made my position fully clear up above, but while I love living in a country with guns not being permitted. I would not have them fully removed from the U.S.A. However, I do think semi automatic and automatic guns are simply not needed (high powered ones that is) and gun control should focus on limiting them severely. As I said a handgun would do. You mentioned a scenario in which the nearest police officers were an hour away. Of course, in that instance they should grab their gun. But as I said originally, do you need an automatic weapon to decapitate someone? I personally don't believe so, one or two bullets hitting their body would do the job. I do not believe that anyone needs a high powered weapon to "defend themselves". (By high powered I mean anything that can basically spray ammunition). A pistol or shotgun would work fine.

You then mentioned the Texas shooter, and while I agree he was a heroic man. 26 People died before he got there, and to me this really shows that a good guy with a gun isn't enough. Huge damage is already done at that point in time. The solution to me is to stop the "bad guys" having guns which are made to kill multiple people. Instead of also giving the "good guys" them guns too. I think all guns should be harder to get in the first place, stricter checks. I also think mental health needs to be focussed more on as well in the USA.

Then you went on to say about the dictatorship scenario. I'm going to touch wood as I said this, but I don't believe it's a hugely realistic scenario. I do believe the "we need guns to stop the Government becoming a dictatorship" is fearmongering. I do hope I'm wrong there. But I think protecting kids and innocent people, is more important than preparing for a scenario which probably won't happen!

Then lastly about your argument about collecting the guns in. In Australia they did a buy-back, and bought lots of guns off people before then destroying them. This went very smoothly and even though it's expensive it seems to be worth it for them in the long run. It worked well for them. So it just goes to show that getting the guns back isn't completely impossible, and where there's will there's a way.
 1
PM Link

LukeWilliams10 wrote

I do think semi automatic and automatic guns are simply not needed

Anonymous Quote

As I said a handgun would do

Handguns are semi automatic, and as i said automatic firearms are very rare amongst the general populace anyway (Useless for self defense, largely innacurate in SF. I'll give you that.)

Anonymous Quote

Then you went on to say about the dictatorship scenario. I'm going to touch wood as I said this, but I don't believe it's a hugely realistic scenario. I do believe the "we need guns to stop the Government becoming a dictatorship" is fearmongering. I do hope I'm wrong there. But I think protecting kids and innocent people, is more important than preparing for a scenario which probably won't happen!

I didn't say dictatorship. I said tyranny. You can still live under a democratic Republic but be victim of tyranny.
For example, in California the Black Panthers exercised their 2nd amendment rights by patrolling around openly armed, in response to the racism they were subject to in that period. How did the state government react? By enacting strict gun control laws (the first in that state at that point).

Anonymous Quote

Then lastly about your argument about collecting the guns in. In Australia they did a buy-back, and bought lots of guns off people and then destroyed them. This went very smoothly and even though it's expensive it seems to be worth it for them in the long run. It worked well for them. So it just goes to show that getting the guns back isn't completely impossible, and were there's will there's a way.

American gun owners care more about their inalienable rights than monetary gain. And Australia never had a law guaranteeing the right to own and bare arms.

Anonymous Quote

The solution to me is to stop the "bad guys" having guns which are made to kill multiple people. Instead of also giving the "good guys" them guns too.

Background checks should be more thorough (and actually fucking work) i agree, but next to that there is nothing else we can do apart from making sure 'good guys' have the option to defend themselves and others around them.

On a side note the U.K isn't completely gun free either Luke. Someone was shot at the top of my road last Friday, and there was a case of an old man defending his house against burglars with one of his shotguns. The assiliants died at the scene, and there was proof that they were going to kill the old man and his wife (via phone messages and the knives they carried with him). When this went to court, the old man was let off lightly (not a manslaughter charge in sight!) but had to pay a small fine because his shotgun wasn't registered properly.
In Northern Ireland you can also own handguns for self-defense (permit required and you have to give a reason - can be small they hand them out like candy [it's NI so obviously]) whereas in the UK you have to write to the Home Secretary for permission, and you have to have a pretty good reason.

 0
PM Link

LukeWilliams10 wrote

@cfrazierjrI also noticed your Stat may have been from 2002 (it seems to say that although it's chopped off a little) Which is a while ago!
are you accusing me of doctoring statistics?
 0
PM Link
@LukeWilliams10
“So you stated mass shootings are an unreliable way to describe crime, it can be seen as that in ways. But a "mass shooting" is considered to be a shooting in which 4 or more people are injured or killed. There's been around 30 of these in America so far in 2018”

The reason it is unreliable is because it is not accurate. 5 people dying at once is not the same as 100 people dying at once but under “mass shooting” stats it is so the best statistics to go by is gun related homicides. Also gun related homicides have actually been on the decline since 1993 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

“What I immediately noticed is that a huge amount of the countries above are developing countries. They obviously aren't on a level playing field, sometimes having underfunded security services so murders aren't investigated properly and nobody is brought to justice. Some have gang problems, drug cartels and corruption.”
Yes most of the countries listed above are developing countries that goes to show that gun ownership is not clearly correlated to gun homicides unlike big populated cities and poverty. What also affects these stats is that %80 of all gun crimes are done with illegal (gang violence) weapons. Gang violence appears most frequently in big populated cities and the US ranks 3rd in amount of cities that have over 100.000 people.
Also my mistake I meant the US ranks 28th in firearms murders, because when you talk about gun deaths it includes suicide in the statistics.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

“Are we really comparing the USA to countries with huge problems like this and not enough resources to deal with them? “
The US has it’s own problems too, there are way too many gun owners in the US which wouldn’t be willing to give their guns back which would also cause more conflicts.


“Then you also mentioned about the U.K being prone to "hot burglaries" . Now while I spouted about the U.K having less mass shootings above, it's true. However, I do not believe our self defence laws are perfect. I would never ever suggest allowing people to have guns, but I would definitely be up for non lethal weapons like mace or a Taser which currently aren't allowed in the U.K. So there's that. However, a lot of burglaries in the U.K are opportunistic crimes, there is not criminals like Marv and Harry from the film Home alone staking out houses they're planning to rob for a week prior to the crime :P They usually just see an opportunity and they take it, which is still bad of course. But these people often don't want confrontation when doing that.”

Sadly maces and tasers aren’t as affective as guns, they are not as intimidating nor do they give an edge in combat. But guns do there are 500.000 to 3 million defensive gun uses each year (theres a big gap between the 2 numbers because not all defenses are reported.) 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS), found around 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.
You said crimes in the U.K are opportunistic crimes, I am not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean criminals commit crimes when they get the opportunity to? Isn’t that how any crimes happens? You say that these people don’t want confrontation but as statistics show they don’t seem to care much if the home owner is present or not compared to the US because there is a high chance the home owner also owns a gun.

“Then lastly you mentioned about 68% of crime is committed by handguns, so for one that's still 32% of crimes committed using the guns I'm talking about which is still a lot! Secondly on that, if 68% percent of gun crime are committed using them type of gun. Wouldn't a handgun suffice to defend yourself against it too?”

No that doesn’t mean 32% of crimes are committed with the guns you are talking about. AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. Out of 8.124 gun homicides only 248 of them were committed with rifles https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Handguns may not suffice for 2 reasons

1. If a criminal is using a handguns against you, you would want the advantage in that fight whether for intimidating the opponent or taking them on in an actual fight
2. The second amendment was not written solely because of house invaders / criminals. It also exists because of the fact that there is a possibility of the government becoming tyrannical and semi-automated weapons give some sort of a fighting chance
 0
PM Link
Bump
 0
PM Link
there are a lot of guns in the US. getting rid of 300 million+ guns is even more unreasonable than trump wanting to deport 11 million undocumented people
 3
PM Link
Criminals don't abide by gun laws anyways, I see where you going if you're saying that it should be harder to obtain a firearm, but even then they can just purchase one off of the black market or someone else. Making the laws stricter in use of guns is a no go, criminals don't abide by the laws only law-abiding citizens do.
 0
PM Link

Bluuiish wrote

guns not ok :(


guns kill peaple :(




AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
 0
PM Link
I no is live us but gun mean!!! Not gun!!!!! Is no good!!! Is better atomic bom!!!!! No inteligent if use gun!!!! :v
 0
PM Link
eh although im generally left wing i tend to be a defender of the second amendment
 0
PM Link
🅱️ro just put yourself in creative mode 🤣🤣😂💀
 0
PM Link

Shiftehh wrote

I no is live us but gun mean!!! Not gun!!!!! Is no good!!! Is better atomic bom!!!!! No inteligent if use gun!!!! :v

funny
 0
PM Link